# Sudhir Singh & Ors v. Union of Bharat & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 1067
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-19
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation No. 350 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sudhir-singh-ors-v-union-of-bharat-ors-48721
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226
- confers powers on this Court to issue writs to
any
person
or
authority
throughout
the
territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, and it can issue writs in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action
for exercising such power arises. If the cause of
action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the
Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly,
if the cause of action arises wholly outside the
specified areas in Oudh then Allahabad will have
jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises
in the specified Oudh areas and part of the
cause of action arises outside the specified
areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the
case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction
either at Lucknow or at Allahabad.

B. P.I.L.- The Writ Petition has not been filed
on the ground of violation of any Fundamental
right or any statutory right of the public at
large, which may warrant the issuance of a Writ
Petition. Existence of a legally enforceable right
and denial or violation thereof is a pre-requisite
for invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
'Public Interest Litigation' must mention the
legally enforceable right of the public at large
which has been infringed or denied.

C. It is not proper on the part of the petitioners
to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court by
filing a Public Interest Litigation seeking a relief
regarding the subject matter, which is already
the subject matter of the pending suits as also
of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases relied upon:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,833 of 48,037. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39833 for what follows._

7 All. Sudhir Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of Bharat & Ors.
1067

112. All the surviving accusedrespondents, namely, Sahab Singh, Charan
Singh, Dharamvir and Shri Pal, shall put
their appearance immediately before Chief
Judicial Magistrate concerned. If the
accused persons appear before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, they shall be sent to
jail to serve out the sentence, However, if
they fail to surrender, as directed above, the
Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is
directed to take coercive action against
them in this regard.

113. Let a copy of this judgment
alongwith lower court record be sent
forthwith to the Trial Court as well as Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
concerned
for
necessary compliance and further action. A
compliance report be sent to this Court.
----------
(2022)07ILR A1067
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Public Interest Litigation No. 350 of 2022

Sudhir Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of Bharat & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Asok Pande, Ankit Mishra, Parmanand Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226
- confers powers on this Court to issue writs to
any
person
or
authority
throughout
the
territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, and it can issue writs in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action
for exercising such power arises. If the cause of
action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the
Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly,
if the cause of action arises wholly outside the
specified areas in Oudh then Allahabad will have
jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises
in the specified Oudh areas and part of the
cause of action arises outside the specified
areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the
case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction
either at Lucknow or at Allahabad.

B. P.I.L.- The Writ Petition has not been filed
on the ground of violation of any Fundamental
right or any statutory right of the public at
large, which may warrant the issuance of a Writ
Petition. Existence of a legally enforceable right
and denial or violation thereof is a pre-requisite
for invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
'Public Interest Litigation' must mention the
legally enforceable right of the public at large
which has been infringed or denied.

C. It is not proper on the part of the petitioners
to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court by
filing a Public Interest Litigation seeking a relief
regarding the subject matter, which is already
the subject matter of the pending suits as also
of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases relied upon:-

1. Ardhendu Kumar Das Vs St. of Odisha & ors.,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 718

2.
Committee
of
Management
Anjuman
Intezamia Masjid Varanasi Vs Rakhi Singh, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 694

3.
Nasiruddin vs St. Transport Appellate
Tribunal, 1975 (2) SCC 671

4. U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad,
Lucknow Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 1995 (4) SCC 738
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

1. Heard Sri Asok Pande, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinod
Kumar Shahi, the learned Additional
1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advocate General of U.P. and Sri Abhinav
Narayan
Trivedi,
the
learned
Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2
and 3, Sri Surya Mani Singh Royekwar, the
learned Counsel for the Union of India and
Archaeological Survey of India, respondent
nos. 1 and 4, who has filed his memo of
appearance.

2. The instant petition, which has
been styled as a Public Interest Litigation,
has been filed by 7 persons praying that a
direction be issued "to appoint a Committee
/ Commission headed by a Judge of the
High Court or Supreme Court (sitting or
retired) to study the nature of structure
found in the Gyan Vapi Campus to
ascertain as to whether it is Shivlinga, as
being claimed by the Hindus or it is a
fountain as being claimed by few of the
Muslims and to direct the concerned
respondents to act accordingly to such
report means if it is a Shivlinga then permit
the devotees to pray it as per rituals and if it
is found fountain then make it functional".

3. At the outset, Sri Abhinav Narayan
Trivedi,
the
learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel
has
raised
the
following
preliminary
objections
against
maintainability of the Writ Petition:-

(i). Several Suits are pending in the
Civil Court at Varanasi regarding the
structures existing in Gyanvapi Parisar,
Varanasi and, therefore, this Writ Petition
concerning the same subject matter should
not be entertained by this Court.

(ii). As per the orders of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 9388 of 2022, the suits
filed
at
Varanasi
concerning
the
controversy
relating
to
Gyan
Vapi
Compound which were pending in the
court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Varanasi, have been transferred to the Court
of District Judge, Varanasi. The aforesaid
Special Leave Petition is still pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is
fixed for 21.07.2022 and, therefore, it
would not be proper for this Court to
entertain a petition while the dispute is
pending in the form of various civil suits
before the District Judge, Varanasi and it is
also engaging the attention of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid pending
Special Leave Petition.

(iii). The subject matter of the writ
petition is Gyan Vapi Campus situated at
Varanasi and it falls within the territorial
jurisdiction of this High Court sitting at
Allahabad. Therefore, this Court sitting at
Lucknow has no territorial jurisdiction to
entertain this petition and the petition is
liable to be dismissed for want of territorial
jurisdiction.

(iv). The learned State Counsel has
vehemently opposed the petition and has
submitted that the writ petition does not
disclose the credentials of the petitioners
and the only thing pleaded in this regard is
that the petitioners are the followers of
Sanatan Dharma. The petition which has
allegedly been filed in Public Interest, is
not maintainable, unless the petitioners
disclose their credentials so as to establish
that they have actually approached this
Court in public interest only. Placing
reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ardhendu
Kumar Das Versus State of Odisha and
others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 718, the
learned State Counsel has submitted that
the writ petition filed purportedly in public
interest is actually designed to obtain
publicity only and, therefore, it is liable to
be dismissed at the threshold.

4. When the Court called upon the
learned counsel for the petitioners to give a
7 All. Sudhir Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of Bharat & Ors.
1069
reply to the preliminary objections raised
by
the
learned
State
Counsel,
he
categorically stated that he is not bound to
reply to each and every submission made
by the learned State Counsel. However,
when this Court put a question to the
learned counsel for the petitioners as to
how a Writ Petition can be entertained by
this Court in respect of the subject matter
which is already the subject matter of suits
filed before the Civil Court at Varanasi, the
learned Counsel for the petitioners stated
that the relief claimed in the instant Public
Interest Litigation has not been claimed in
any of the suits and, therefore, pendency of
the suit would not be a bar against filing of
the Public Interest Litigation.

5. When called upon to address the
Court on the point of maintainability of the
Writ Petition before this Court sitting at
Lucknow when the subject matter of the
petition is situated at Varanasi, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
empowers every High Court to issue writs
to any person or authority without any
territorial fetters and in the past he had filed
a Writ Petition in this Court regarding Ram
Setu situated in the State of Tamil Nadu
and that Writ Petition had been entertained
without any objection regarding territorial
jurisdiction. He further submitted that
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
does not contain any provision for separate
Benches of the High Court. The territorial
jurisdiction of this High Court sitting at
Allahabad and at Lucknow has not been
divided by the Constitution or by any
statute.

6. The learned Chief Standing
Counsel has informed that at least 5 regular
suits bearing Regular Suit Nos. 350 of
2021, 358 of 2021, 693 of 2021, 839 of
2021 and 840 of 2021 have been filed in
the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)
at Varanasi. In Regular Suit No. 350 of
2021, the following main reliefs have been
claimed: -

"(A) Pass decree in the nature of
declaration declaring that the Worshippers
of Maa Goddess Shrigar Gauri,Gooddess
Maa
Ganga,Lord
Hanuman,
Lord
Ganeshji, Nandiji along with Lord Adi
Visheshwar are entitled to have Darshan,
Pooja and Worship of deities within the
area of Settlement Polt No. 9130(Nine
thousand One Hundred Thirty ), measuring
about 1 ( One) Bhiga, 9 (Nine ) Biswas and
6 (six) Dhoors situated at Dashashwamedh
in the heart of city of Varanasi, Ward and
police Station Dashashwamedh;

(B) Pass a decree in the nature of
declaration declaring that the entire
Avimukteshwar area belongs to deity
Asthan Lord Adi Visheshwar in the radius
of 5(Five) Kos (Krosh) from the principal
seat at Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty), measuring
about 1(One) Bhiga, 9(Nine) Biswas and 6
(Six) Doors situated at Dashashwamedh in
the heart of city of Veranasi, Ward and
police Station Dashhashwamedh;

(C) Pass a decree in the nature of
perpetual injunction against defendants
prohibiting them, and their workers,
agents, officers, officials and every person
acting under them from interfering with or
raising any objection or obstruction in the
construction
of
NewTemple
building
consisting of Maa Ganga, Goddess Maa
Shringar Gauri along with Lord Ganesh,
Nandi Ji and other subsidiary deities at
Principle seat of Asthan Adi Visheshwar at
Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine Thousand
One Hundred Thirty), Measuring about 1
(One) Bhiga, 9 (Nine) Biswas and 6(Six)
Doors situated at Dashashwamedh in the
1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
heart of city of Varanasi, Ward and Police
Station Dashashwamedh after demolishing
and removing the existing buildings and
structures etc, situated thereat, in so far as
it may be necessary are expecdient to do so
for the said purpose;

(D) Decree the suit of plaintiffs issuing
Mandatory in junction directing defendant
No.2 (Two) the Government of Uttar
Pradesh and Defendant No.7(Seven) the
Board of trustees of Kashi Vishwanath
Temple,
created
under
Shri
Kashi
Vishwanath Temple Act,1983 (Nineteen
Eight Three) to restore pooja worship of
Goddess Gauri Shringarji,Goddess Maa
Ganga, Lord Hanuman,Lord Ganeshji,
Nandiji along with Lord Adi Visheswar and
make
appropriate
arrangement
for
Darshan and Pooja by worshippers and
maintain law and order situation;"

7. In Regular Suit No. 358 of 2021,
the reliefs claimed are as follows: -

"(A) Pass a decree in the nature of
declaration declaring that the worshippers
of Goddess Maa Ganga, Maa Godess
Shrigar Gauri, Lord Hanuman, Lord
Ganeshji, Nandiji alongwith Lord Adi
Visheshwar are entitled to have Darshan,
Pooja and Worship of deities within the
area of Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty), measuring
about 1 (One) Bhiga, 9 (Nine) Biswas and
6 (Six) Dhoors situated at Dashashwamedh
in the heart of city of Varanasi, Ward and
police Station Dashashwamedh;

(B) Pass a decree in the nature of
declaration
declaring
the
entire
Avimukteshwar area belongs to deity
Asthan Lord Adi Visheshwar in the radius
of 5 (Five) Kos (Krosh) from the principal
seat at Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty), measuring
about 1 (One) Bhiga, 9 (Nine) Biswas and
6 (Six) Doors situated at Dashashwamedh
in the heart of city of Varanasi, Ward and
police Station Dashashwamedh.

(C) Pass a decree in the nature of
perpetual injunction against defendants
prohibiting them, and their workers,
agents, officers, officials and every person
acting under them from interfering with, or
raising any objection or obstruction in the
construction of New Temple building
consisting of Maa Ganga, Goddess Maa
Shringar Gauri alongwith with Lord
Ganesh, Nsndi Ji and other subsidiary
deities at principal seat of Asthan Adi
Visheshwar at Settlement Plot No. 9130
(Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty),
measuring about 1 (One) Bhiga, 9 (Nine)
Biswas and 6 (Six) Dhoors situated at
Dashashwamedh in the heart of city of
Varanasi,
Ward
and
Police
Station
Dashashwamedh After demolishing and
removing
the
existing
buildings
and
structures etc, situated thereat, in so far as
it may be necessary are expedient to do so
for the said purpose;

(D) Decree the suit of plaintiffs issuing
Mandatory in junction directing defendant
No. 2 (Two) the government of Uttar
Pradesh abd Defendant No. 7 (Seven) the
Board of trustees of Kashi Vishwanath
Temple,
created
under
Shri
Kashi
Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Nineteen
Eighty Three) to restore pooja Darshan and
performance of rituals related to Lord Adi
Visheshwar and also the ritual of jalabhishl
with fresh Gangajal of the Jyotirlingam
along with Goddess Gauri Shringarji, Lord
Hanuman, Lord Ganeshji, Nandiji at
Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine Thousand
One Hundred Thirty), measuring about 1
(One) Bhiga, 9 (Nine) Biswas and 6 (Six)
Dhoors situated at Dashashwamedh in the
heart of city of Varanasi, Ward and police
station
Dashashwamedh
and
make
appropriate arrangement for Darshan and
7 All. Sudhir Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of Bharat & Ors.
1071
Pooja by worshippers and maintain law
and order situation."

8. In Regular Suit No. 693 of 2021,
the following reliefs have been claimed: -

"(A) Decree the suit for declaration
declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled to have
Darshan, Pooja and perform all the rituals
of Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, Lord
Hanuman and other visible and invisible
deities within old temple complex situated
at
Settlement
Plot
No.
9130
(Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty) in the area
of Ward and P.S. Dashashwamedh District
Varanasi.

(B) Decree the suit for permanent
injunction restraining the Defendants from
imposing any restriction, creating any
obstacle, hindrance or interference in
performance of daily Darshan, Pooja, Arti,
Bhog and observance of rituals by devotees
of Goddess Ma Sringar Gauri at Asthan of
Lord Adi Visheshwa along with Lord.
Ganesh, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman,
Nandiji and other visible and invisible
deities within old temple complex situated
at
Settlement
Plot
No.
9130
(Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty) in the area
of Ward and P.S. Dashashwamedh District
Varanasi.

(C) Decree the suit for permanent
injunction restraining the Defendants from
demolishing,
damaging,
destroying
or
causing any damage to the images of
deities Goddess Maa Sringar Gauri at
Asthan of Lord Adi Visheshwar alongwith
Lord
Ganesh,
Lord
Ganesh,
Lord
Hanuman, Nandiji and other visible and
invisible deities within old temple complex
situated at Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty) in the area
of Ward and P.S. Dashashwamedh District
Varanasi.

(D) Decree the suit for mandatory
injunction dircting the Government of Uttar
Pradesh and District Administration to
make every security arrangement and
facilitate daily Darshan, Pooja, Aarti, Bhog
by devotees of Maa Sringar Gauri along
with Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman, Nandiji
and other images and deities within the
precincts of temple complex known as
'Ancient temple' existing at Settlement Plot
No. 9130 (Nine Thousand One Hundred
Thirty) in the area of Ward and P.S.
Dashashwamedh District Varanasi."

9. In Regular Suit No. 839 of 2021,
the following reliefs have been claimed: -

"Declare that the plaintiffs No. 1
(One)-Deity is the owner of settlement land
No. 9130 (Nine Thousand One Hundred
Thirty)
situated
at
Ward
and
P.S.
Dashashwamedh Dist. Varanasi as the
property vested in the deity much before
Sat Yuga Beyond the memory of human
being and Defendant Nos. 01 (One) and 2
(Two), their workers, supporters, men,
attorneys and every person acting under
them have no right to enter upon or use the
aforesaid land and property in any manner
or to make any interference in the Pooaj
and worship and daily rituals of the diety
within the property in suit i.e. old Shri Aadi
Visheshwar Temple Complex and decree of
declaration be passed to that effect in
favour of the Plaintiffs and against the
defendants;

(B) Declare that registration No. 100
(One hundred) made by U.P. Sunni Central
Waqf Board in regard to any portion of land
No. 9130 (Nine Thousand One Hundred
Thirty)
situated
at
Ward
and
P.S.
Dasaswamedh Dist. Varanasi is having no
sanction of law, illegal, ultra vires, null and
void and decree of declaration be passed to
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that effect in favour of the Plaintiffs and
against the Defendants;

(C)
Issue
mandatory
injunction
directing Defendants No. (One) and 2
(Two) to remove the super structure raised
over Aadi Visheshwar Jyotirlinga situated
at
Settlement
Plot
No.
9130
(Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty) within
Ward and P.S. Dashashwamedh District
Varanasi within the time provided by the
Hon'ble Court failing which same may be
removed through the executing agency of
the Hon'ble court and decree in the nature
of mandatory injunction be passed to that
effect in favour of the Plaintiffs and against
the Defendants.
(D) Issue mandatory injunction directing
the Board of Trustees, the Defendant No. 3
(Three)
to
re-construct
Shri
Aadi
Visheshwar Temple at the place of
"Jyotirlinga" existing within old temple
complex at Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty) within
Ward and P.S. Dashashwamedh District
Varanasi after removal of the present
structure thereat and to ake arrangement for
Pooja, Bhog, performance of rituals of the
deity and Worship to be performed by
devotees and decree in the nature of
mandatory injunction be passed to that
effect in favour of the Plaintiffs and against
the Defendants.

(E)
Issue
permanent
injunction
restraining the Defendants No. 1 (One) and
2 (Two), their workers, agents, officers,
officials and every person acting under
them from interfering with, or raising any
objection or obstruction in the construction
of new temple of Lord Aadi Visheshwar at
Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine Thousand
One Hundred Thirty) within Ward and P.S.
Dashashwamedh District Varanasi after
demolishing and removing the existing
building/structure situated thereat, in so far
as it may be necessary or expedient to do so
far the said purpose and decree in the
nature of permanent injunction be passed to
that effect in favour of the Plaintiffs and
against the Defendants;"

10. In Regular Suit No. 840 of 2021,
the relief claimed are as follows: -

"(A) Declare that Nandiji seated
within Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple
Complex is entitled to have darshan of
Lord Aadi Visheshwar Jyotirlinga situated
at
Settlement
Plot
No.
9130
(Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty) within
Ward and P.S. Dashashwamedh District
Varanasi and is entitled to worshipped by
devotees of Lord Shiva and Plaintiffs
Devotees have right to get blessing from
Nandiji before and after Darshan and Pooja
of Jyotirlinga following the ordain provided
in scriptures of Sanatan Dharma and decree
of declaration be passed to that effect in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the
Defendants;

(B)
Issue
mandatory
injunction
directing the Defendants No. 01 (One) and
2 (two) to remove the super structure raised
over Aadi Visheshwar Jyotirlinga situated
at
Settlement
Plot
No.
9130
(Nine
Thousand One Hundred Thirty) within
Ward and P.S. Dashashwamedh District
Varanasi and therefore the Board of
Trustees the Defendant No. 3 (Three) to
make every arrangement for Darshan and
Pooja
thereat
by
the
devotees
and
worshippers and to maintain Law and
Order situation and decree to that effect in
favour of the Plaintiffs and against the
Defendants;

(C)
Issue
permanent
injunction
restraining the Defendant No. 1 (One) and
2 (Two), their workers, agents, officers,
officials and every person acting under
them from interfering with or raising any
objection or obstruction in the construction
7 All. Sudhir Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of Bharat & Ors.
1073
of new temple of Lord Aadi Viseshwar at
Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine Thousand
One Hundred Thirty) within Ward and P.S.
Dashashwamedh District Varanasi after
demolishing and removing the existing
building/structures situated thereat, in so
far as it may be necessary or expedient to
do so for the said purpose and decree in the
nature of permanent injunction be passed to
that effect in favour of the Plaintiffs and
against the Defendants;

(D) Decree the suit for such others
reliefs for which the Plaintiffs may be
found entitled to or which may be deemed
necessary
to
be
passed
for
proper
adjudication of the case and in the interest
of justice."

11. In the case of Committee of
Management
Anjuman
Intezamia
Masjid Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh, Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9388 of 2022,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the
following order on 17-05-2022, which is
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 694: -

"1. The orders of the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Varanasi dated 18 August
2021, 5 April 2022 and 8 April 2022 were
questioned before the Single Judge of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a
petition
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution1. The Single Judge by an
order dated 21 April 2022 rejected the
petition.

2. In pursuance of the order of the
Trial Judge, the Commissioner commenced
executing the work of the Commission on
14 and 15 May 2022.

3. During the course of the execution
of the work of the Commission, an
application was moved before the Trial
Judge on 16 May 2022 by counsel for the
plaintiffs stating as follows :

"Sir

Today on 16.05.2022, a Shivalinga is
found in Masjid Complex at the place
where Waju Khana is there..

This is a very important piece of
evidence.

Kindly make the following directions -

1. Direct the C.R.P.F. Commandant to
seal the Waju Khana with proper force.

2. Kindly direct the District Magistrate
to restrict entire of Muslims for offering
Namaz. Not more than 20 Muslims be
allowed to offer Namaz.

3. Kindly stop the usage of Weju
Khana with immediate effect."

4. On the above application, the
following order has been passed ex-parte :

"Application 78Ga is allowed. The
DM, Varanasi is directed that the place
where Shivalinga has been found should be
sealed with immediate effect and entry of
any person should be prohibited in the
sealed area. The DM, Varanasi, Police
Commissioner, Police Commissionerate,
Varanasi and the C.R.P.F. Commandant,
Varanasi, are directed that the individual
responsibility
for
the
protection
and
preservation of the place which is being
sealed shall be individually upon the
aforesaid officers. With regards to the place
being
sealed
the
responsibility
of
supervision of what is being done by the
administration shall be upon the Director
General of Police, Police Headquarters,
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Principal
Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow."

5. Issue notice returnable on 19 May
2022. Dasti permitted in addition.

6. Mr. Huzefa A Ahmadi, learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, submits that since the Trial
Judge has allowed application No 78Ga,
the order is susceptible of the interpretation
that the entirety of the reliefs which were
sought has been allowed. Learned senior
counsel urged that the above order has
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been passed ex-parte when the work of the
Commission was in progress and that the
petitioners question the order to carry out a
survey on the ground of jurisdiction.

7. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General, appears for the State of Uttar
Pradesh.

8. In order to obviate any dispute on
the meaning and content of the order of the
Trial Judge, the operation and ambit of the
order dated 16 May 2022 shall stand
restricted to the extent that the District
Magistrate, Varanasi shall ensure that the
area where the Shivalinga is stated to have
been found, as indicated in the order, shall
be duly protected.

9. The above direction shall not in any
manner restrain or impede the access of
Muslims to the mosque or the use of the
Mosque
for
the
purpose
of
performing Namaz and
religious
observances."

12. On 20-05-2022, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has been pleased to pass
the following order in the aforesaid case,
which is reported in 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 696: -

"1. Having regard to the complexity of
the issues involved in the suit and their
sensitivity, we are of the considered view
that the suit pending before the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Varanasi (Civil Suit No
693 of 2021) should be tried before a
senior and experienced judicial officer of
the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service.

2. We accordingly order and direct
that:

(i) Civil Suit No 693 of 2021 shall
stand transferred from the file of the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Varanasi to the
court of the District Judge, Varanasi for
trial and all interlocutory and ancillary
proceedings in the suit shall be addressed
to and decided by the court of the District
Judge;

(ii) The application filed by the
petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 shall be
decided on priority by the District Judge
upon the transfer of the suit;

(iii) Since parties are appearing on
notice, all orders in the suit shall be passed
upon hearing the parties;

(iv) The interim order of this Court
dated 17 May 2022 shall continue to
remain in operation pending the disposal of
the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC and thereafter for a period of eight
weeks so as to enable any party which is
aggrieved by the order of the District Judge
to pursue its rights and remedies in
accordance with law;

(v) Unless adequate arrangements for
ensuring the due observance of Waju have
already
been
made
by
the
District
Magistrate,
we
direct
the
District
Magistrate, in consultation with the parties,
to ensure that appropriate arrangements
are made for the religious observance; and

(vi) The order passed by the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Varanasi on 16
May 2022 shall stand subsumed by the
terms of the order of this Court dated 17
May 2022, pending further orders.

3. These proceedings shall be listed on
21 July 2022."

13. By means of the instant petition, the
petitioners have sought a direction to the
respondents to appoint a Committee /
Commission to study the nature of the
structure found in the Gyanvapi Campus.
The
structures
existing
in
Gyanvapi
compound at Varanasi are already the
subject matter of dispute in various civil
suits mentioned above and in Civil Suit No.
693 of 2021 a declaration has been sought
regarding the right to perform all the rituals
7 All. Sudhir Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of Bharat & Ors.
1075
of "visible and invisible deities" within the
temple complex situated at Settlement Plot
No. 9130 in the area of Ward and Police
Station Dashashwamedh, District Varanasi.
In Suit No. 350 of 2022 a declaration has
been sought to the effect that the
worshippers of Maa Godess Shrigar Gauri,
Goddess Maa Ganga, Lord Hanuman, Lord
Ganeshji, Nandiji alongwith Lord Adi
Visheshwar are entitled to have Darshan,
Pooja and Worship of the deities within the
area
of
Settlement
Plot
No.
9130,
measuring about 1 Bigha, 9 Biswas and 6
Dhoors situated at Dashwaamedh in the
heart of City of Varanasi, Ward and Police
Station Dashashwamedh.

14. A commission for local inspection
has already been issued and it has been
carried out in Civil Suit No 693 of 2021
under orders passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Varanasi and as per the
plaintiffs, a Shivlinga has been found
during local inspection of the site by the
Commissioner appointed by the Court and
this claim is being disputed by the other
side and having regard to the complexity of
the issues involved, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has directed that the aforesaid Civil
Suit shall be transferred to the Court of the
District Judge, Varanasi, for trial and all
interlocutory and ancillary proceedings in
the suit have also been directed to be
decided by the District Judge, Varanasi.
The Special Leave Petition is still pending
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15. Keeping into consideration the
aforesaid facts, we are of the considered
opinion that it is not proper on the part of the
petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of the
High Court by filing a Public Interest
Litigation seeking a relief regarding the
subject matter, which is already the subject
matter of the pending suits as also of the
aforesaid Special Leave Petition. For the
aforesaid reason, we are not decline to
entertain the Writ Petition.

16. However, since the learned Chief
Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary
objection against maintainability of the Writ
Petition on the ground of lack of territorial
jurisdiction and the learned Counsel for the
petitioner has advanced his submissions in
reply to the aforesaid preliminary objection,
we think it appropriate to deal with the same
also. The relevant portion of the Article 226
of the Constitution of India provides as
follows:-

"226. Power of High Courts to issue
certain writs: -

(i) Notwithstanding anything in Article
32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any
person
or
authority,
including
in
appropriate cases, any Government, within
those territories directions, orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas
corpus,
mandamus,
prohibitions,
quo
warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for
the enforcement of any of the rights conferred
by Part III and for any other purpose

(ii) The power conferred by clause ( 1 )
to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be
exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories
within which the cause of action, wholly or
in part, arises for the exercise of such power,
notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of
such person is not within those territories

(iii)......."

(Emphasis Supplied)

17. A perusal of the Article 226 of the
Constitution of India makes it manifest that
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
it confers power upon every High Court to
issue directions, orders or writs throughout
the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction. Clause (2) of the
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
further provides that the power to issue
directions, orders or writs may be exercised
by any High Court exercising jurisdiction
in relation to the territory within which the
cause of action wholly or in part arises for
exercise of such power, notwithstanding
that the seat of the Government, authority
or the residence of any person to whom
direction, order or writ is to be issued, is
not within those territories.

18. Article 226 of the Constitution of
India confers powers on this Court to issue
writs to any person or authority throughout
the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction, and it can issue writs
in relation to the territories within which
the cause of action for exercising such
power arises. Therefore, the submission of
the learned Counsel for the petitioners that
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
empowers every High Court to issue writs
to any person or authority and Article 226
of the Constitution of India does not put
any territorial fetters on the powers of the
High Court, is without any substance and
the same is rejected.

19. The submission of the learned
Counsel for the petitioners that in the past he
had filed a Writ Petition in this Court
regarding Ram Setu situated in the State of
Tamil Nadu and that Writ Petition had been
entertained without any objection regarding
territorial jurisdiction is too vague to warrant
any consideration. He has not submitted copy
of any judgment which can be treated as a
binding precedent. He has not even cared to
give any particulars of the judgment e.g. the
number of the case or the date of its decision.
In absence of a copy or the particulars of the
judgment having been produced before this
Court, we cannot ascertain as to whether the
point of territorial jurisdiction was raised in
that Writ Petition and if such a point was
involved in the Writ Petition, what ratio had
been laid down by this Court while deciding
the issue. Therefore, we reject the aforesaid
submission of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner.

20. The Uttar Pradesh High Courts
Amalgamation Order, 1948 was published on
19.07.1948 and it was through this Order that
the High Court in Allahabad and Chief Court
in
Oudh
situated
at
Lucknow
were
amalgamated so as to constitute a new High
Court by the name of ''High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad'. Clause-14 of the
Amalgamation Order provides as follows:-

"14. The new High Court, and the
Judges and Division Courts thereof, shall sit
at Allahabad or at such other places in the
United Provinces as the Chief Justice may,
with the approval of the Governor of the
United Provinces, appointed :

Provided that unless Governor of the
United Provinces with the concurrence of the
Chief Justice, otherwise directs such Judges
of the new High Court, not less than two in
number, as the Chief Justice, may, from time
to time, nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in
order to exercise in respect of cases arising in
such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may
direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time
being vested in the new High Court :

Provided further that the Chief Justice
may in his discretion order that any case or
class of cases arising in the said areas shall
be heard at Allahabad."

21. Historically, 12 districts, namely
Lucknow, Hardoi, Kheri, Rai Bareli,
Sitapur,
Unnao,
Faizabad,
Ambedkar
7 All. Sudhir Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of Bharat & Ors.
1077
Nagar, Baharaich, Shravasti, Barabanki,
Gonda, Balrampur, Pratapgarh, Sultanpur,
were known as "Oudh Region" and these
areas were within the jurisdiction of the
Court of Judicial Commissioner, Oudh,
Lucknow.
After
passing
of
the
Amalgamation Order, as per the provision
contained in the First Proviso appended to
Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, this
Court sitting at Lucknow continued to
exercise jurisdiction in respect of the cases
arising in areas falling in Oudh region.

22. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the
Amalgamation Order dated 19.07.1948 lost
its efficacy after the Constitution of India
came into force on 26.01.1950. His
submission is that Article 226 of the
Constitution of India contains no provision
limiting the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court at Lucknow to the areas which were
historically known as the ''Oudh Region'
and this Court's jurisdiction is not limited to
the areas of Oudh and the writ petition filed
for the reliefs concerning the subject matter
situate at Varanasi can be filed and
entertained at Lucknow.

23. In the celebrated judgment in the
case of Nasiruddin vs State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, 1975 (2) SCC 671,
which was a case decided long after
coming into force of the Constitution of
India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that:-

"38. To sum up. Our conclusions are
as follows. First, there is no permanent seat
of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats
at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be
changed in accordance with the provisions
of the Order. Second, the Chief Justice of
the High Court has no power to increase or
decrease the areas in Oudh from time to
time. The areas in Oudh have been
determined once by the Chief Justice and,
therefore, there is no scope for changing
the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has
power under the second proviso to para 14
of the Order to direct in his discretion that
any case or class of cases arising in Oudh
areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any
case or class of cases are those which are
instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation
given by the High Court that the word
"heard" confers powers on the Chief
Justice to order that any case or class of
cases arising in Oudh areas shall be
instituted or filed at Allahabad, instead of
Lucknow is wrong. The word "heard"
means that cases which have already been
instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the
discretion of the Chief Justice under the
second proviso to para 14 of the Order be
directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth,
the expression "cause of action" with
regard to a civil matters means that it
should be left to the litigant to institute
cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad
Bench according to the cause of action
arising wholly or in part within either of
the areas. If the cause of action arises
wholly within Oudh areas then the
Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction.
Similarly, if the cause of action arises
wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh
then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If
the cause of action in part arises in the
specified Oudh areas and part of the cause
of action arises outside the specified areas,
it will be open to the litigant to frame the
case
appropriately
to
attract
the
jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at
Allahabad. Fifth, a criminal case arises
when the offence has been committed or
otherwise as provided in the Criminal
Procedure Code. That will attract the
jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or
Lucknow. In some cases depending on the
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facts
and
the
provision
regarding
jurisdiction, it may arise in either place.

39. Applications under Article 226
will similarly lie either at Lucknow or at
Allahabad as the applicant will allege that
the whole of cause of action or part of the
cause of action arose at Lucknow within
the specified areas of Oudh or part of the
cause of action arose at a place outside the
specified Oudh areas."

(Emphasis Supplied)

24. As per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nasiruddin
(supra) an application under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India will lie at
Lucknow if the petitioners allege that
whole of the cause of action or a part
thereof arose within the areas of Oudh.

25. The judgment of Nasiruddin
(supra) was followed and reaffirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P.
Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad,
Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. and others,
1995 (4) SCC 738, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that, "to decide the
question of territorial jurisdiction it is
necessary to find out the place where the
"cause of action" arose. We, with respect,
reiterate that the law laid down by a FourJudge Bench of this Court in Nasiruddin's
case holds good even today despite the
incorporation of an explanation to Section
141 to the Code of Civil Procedure".

26. The law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nasiruddin (supra) and
reaffirmed in U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill
Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow (supra) is
binding on this Court and we find no force
in the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that there is no law limiting
the jurisdiction of this Court sitting at
Lucknow to the cases in which the cause of
action arose within the territorial limits of
Oudh region.

27.